|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
|
| |
| The Rutificador chile | |
| Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
mike the wiz writes: I think because there is no way to repeat the effects of a world-scale catastrophe, in some cases it would seem highly unlikely and unrealistic and a red-herring to say, "explain this specific thing for a flood". If you can't explain Jar's specific examples from Message 1 in terms of the Flood, if you don't have even a general idea of the kinds of effects the Flood would have on geology, then how do you know the Flood was responsible? If you don't know how the Flood created these geological structures:
Then by what chain of evidence and reasoning do you conclude the Flood was responsible? More generally, though off-topic, how does the Flood explain anything geologically? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith replying to mike the wiz writes: ...and I know we don't even agree on everything... Given what Mike's said in this thread, you two don't agree on much. From Mike's Message 54:
mike the wiz in Message 54 writes: I think because there is no way to repeat the effects of a world-scale catastrophe, in some cases it would seem highly unlikely and unrealistic and a red-herring to say, "explain this specific thing for a flood". So Mike looks at Jar's images:
And says he has no answers, that to him they are anomalies the Flood can't explain. He goes on:
mike the wiz writes: ...when confronted with a peculiar geologic feature, for often the convolutions of the flood don't leave us with any easy way to imagine how it could have happened but that very reason is why it may well be a good reason to believe a flood did do it, because such a world-scale catastrophe would almost be 100% bound to throw up some very strange, unprecedented and convoluted geological activities never witnessed in the present. Yet you claim the Flood explains everything geological and fossilogical and burrowlogical and reeflogical and nestological and canyonlogical and on and on. When pressed to explain how a flood could ever do such a thing you invent fantasies, make evidence-free declarations, ignore posts, pick a fight or pull a disappearing act. EvC is strewn with discussions you've abandoned. And what do you know - reading your next message I see you've set a new record and abandoned this thread after a mere two posts:
Faith in Message 67 writes: Changed my mind. I don't want to participate on this thread. This thread is about education. Mike's position forces him to argue for replacing the teaching of theories underpinned with mountains of evidence with ideas that have no evidence and explain nothing. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
